Obama file 100 here Did Barack Obama, or someone close to him, deliberately mislead voters about the extent of the US president's involvement in the socialist Chicago New Party?In the run up to the November 2008 elections, evidence surfaced that Barack Obama had joined and been endorsed by the Chicago New Party, during his successful 1995/96 Illinois State Senate run. According to Obama's "Fight the Smears" website;Right-wing hatchet man and conspiracy theorist, Stanley Kurtz is pushing a new crackpot smear against Barack falsely claiming he was a member of something called the New Party.But the truth is Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party. In all six primary campaigns of his career, Barack has has run as a Democrat. The New Party did support Barack once in 1996, but he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.Stanley Kurtz also queried Carol Harwell, Obama's campaign manager at the time: She said“Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.”This despite evidence that Obama was heavily involved in the New Party in 1995 and according to New Party News of Spring 1996, page 1, was a bona fide New Party member (see below). I now present evidence that Obama was involved as early as 1993, with a New Party "sister" organization – Progressive Chicago.This organization was formed by members of the New Party as a support group for "progressive" candidates. It's main instigators included New Party members Madeline Talbott of Chicago ACORN and Dan Swinney, a Chicago labor unionist. In an April 27, 1993 letter to prospective Progressive Chicago members, Dan Swinney wrote;"I recently have become interested in the New Party as well as committed myself to see if we can build a Progressive Chicago network, working with Madeline Talbott of ACORN – the local New Party convener. I wanted to introduce you to the NP and Progressive Chicago and would like to talk to…

“Obama’s $50 billion resolution fund for bankrupt banks is unnecessary. What we need most of all is to have the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Comptroller of the Currency, and other regulators enforce the applicable laws. Every Friday, Sheila Bair of the FDIC shuts down a number of small town banks because of insolvency. In her interview yesterday on CNBC, Ms. Bair blatantly admitted that she has no intention of enforcing these same public laws against the large Wall Street and other money center banks. She covers this malfeasance and nonfeasance with her opinion that bankruptcy does not work for the big banks. But there is little doubt that, if their massive derivatives holdings were priced according to mark to market rules, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America would all be thoroughly insolvent candidates for Chapter 7 liquidation. Unless and until this is done, these zombie banks will continue to block any real economic recovery in the United States. Ms. Bair’s policies showed the destructive folly of the current administration’s illegal policies, which are all based in the final analysis on the discredited doctrine of Too Big to Fail.”

True believers in capitalism would demand these banks be shut down. I do.

But the crony relationship of the largest financial institutions with corrupt legislators stills the Hand of Adam Smith. There is no penalty nor deterrent for malfeasance. This is a feature of the system that is unchanged despite the changing of elected government, (it was exactly the same under Bush and Clinton except that it just gets worse despite the party politics).

I just posted a four part video called “Crime Inc.” I think you’ll see a connection as to why these bailouts occurred, why the rising spending and debt, and who are raiding the treasury. There’s more to it, but you’ll see. I’m not asking for instant believability, but your opinion.Incidentally, the author of the above blog post is one of Beck’s favorite (and frequently used) researchers.